Suppression of dissent: what it is and what to do about
it

Direct suppression occurs when:

A person makes a public statement or does something that is seen
as a threat to the powerful interest group. The group most commonly
is a government, industry or profession, but could be, for example, a
trade union, church or environmental organisation.

As a result, action is taken in an attempt to stop or penalise the
person or activity.

Indirect suppression can occur because of the way in which
powerful interest groups control major institutions. This applies
particularly in employment and education. Individuals who find the
institutionalised ideas irrelevant to their own have their own ideas
suppressed through lack of opportunity. They can also experience
direct suppression if they attempt to bring about change.

Self-censorship often occurs because people are worried
about risking their jobs, promotion prospects or ability to live
without threat in their community, or because they fear direct
suppression. Self-censorship makes overt suppression unnecessary.

Methods used against critics include:

censorship of writing;

blocking of publications;

blocking of appointments;

blocking of promotions;

blocking or withdrawal of research grants;

forced job transfers;

reprimands;

denial of research opportunities;

legal actions;

ostracism and harassment;

dismissal;

blacklisting;

spreading of rumours.

Reasons for suppression

While these are common methods used to attack critics, the
reasons given are different. In almost every case, those who
take action against dissidents say that the reason is poor
performance by the dissident or something else that is the
dissident's fault, especially an attack on the dissident's
personality.

How can anyone be sure suppression is involved? There's no way of
being absolutely sure. But the following factors are good
indicators.

Action is not taken against others who are similar to the
person attacked except that they have not done anything threatening
to the interest group. This is the double standard test.

There is a pattern of attacks on critics in the area. (But note
that most attacks are not public knowledge.)

Blaming the dissident

In many cases, those who are suppressed are said to have brought
it on themselves. Often, their personalities are criticised. They are
said to be touchy or abrasive or paranoid. When listening to such
comments, use the double standard test. Are there other people who
are touchy, abrasive or paranoid? Have they been attacked too?

Remember, too, that people who are attacked may quite justifiably
be affected psychologically. For most dissidents, suppression is hard
to deal with. It also often becomes the person's primary concern,
driving others away. Dissidents shouldn't be blamed for difficulties
which have been brought on them by others.

A few dissidents are saints, but most are normal human beings with
the usual range of human frailties. Some dissidents have quite nasty
personal characteristics. But in every case, dissent should be
protected. The focus should be on opposing suppression and ensuring
freedom of speech, not on the psychology of those attacked.

Not everyone who speaks out is attacked. Only some are. Why? There
are all sorts of factors involved. For suppression to occur, someone
must take action against the dissenter. Personalities play a
role.

There are some regularities in suppression. For example, there are
many documented cases of suppression of political radicals (left-wing
and, more occasionally, right-wing), feminists, people who expose
corruption, and critics of nuclear power, forestry, fluoridation or
pesticides. In some areas - such as automobile safety - there are few
cases of suppression because there are few public critics.

The actions which can be called suppression most often are
implemented by people in positions of power in organisations or
associations. This means business executives, government officials
and leaders in professions (law, medicine). Usually, the attacks on a
person come from their superiors: for example, attacks against
academics who speak out more often come from university
administrations than from outsiders.

It is helpful to assume that those who are responsible for
suppression are sincere. They really believe that the
dissident is incompetent, unauthorised or whatever, and that their
own behaviour is quite justified. To call something suppression is to
challenge the explanations given by those in power.

Why suppression is important

Suppression can cause large costs to society. Among those
suppressed are:

engineers who tried to point out the problems with the
Challenger space shuttle that caused it to burn up;

citizens who exposed illegal waste dumping;

public servants who have exposed fraud in government costing
millions or billions of dollars;

accountants who have exposed business fraud involving large
sums of money or the deaths of consumers;

But suppression is undesirable for a more fundamental reason.
Freedom of speech is central to a free society. It is necessary so
that all points of view can be presented and considered. Dissent
should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

Freedom of speech should be available to all, including employees.
When employees in government or industry are inhibited from speaking
out through fear for their jobs, society suffers. Powerful
organisations that claim to serve the public interest should be able
to tolerate critics. Indeed, they need criticism to make them
more effective.

Some cases

Sharon Beder, a trained engineer, was a key figure in
generating concern in Sydney about the discharge of sewage and
industrial waste into the ocean. Many engineers in the Water Board
were extremely hostile to anyone who questioned the Board's policies.
One top member of the Institution of Engineers, the key professional
body, threatened Beder with the possibility of a disciplinary
tribunal. Ironically, a code of professional ethics was invoked to
try to silence a critic.

Mark Diesendorf, coordinator of the Australian Conservation
Foundation's Global Change Programme, in 1990 criticised statements
by Dr Brian O'Brien, formerly head of the Western Australia
Environmental Protection Authority, which minimised the likely
impacts of the greenhouse effect. Diesendorf also pointed out that
O'Brien's employment as a consultant to the coal industry should be
taken into account when evaluating his views. O'Brien issued
proceedings for defamation against both Diesendorf and the ACF. The
case was settled out of court through a carefully-worded apology.

David Obendorf, a government veterinarian in Tasmania,
spoke out about the risks involved in dismantling animal health
surveillance in Australia. He was dismissed from his position and,
after more than four years of struggle, he finally received a public
apology from the Tasmanian government in 1997.

Lesley Pinson worked as an auditor at State Rail in New
South Wales. She discovered evidence of safety problems, fraud, and
sexual and racial harassment. In response to her allegations,
management did nothing except try to shut her up, and eventually
dismissed her. Her allegations were given to the Independent
Commission Against Corruption, which referred them back to State
Rail.

In 1978, Mick Skrijel, a crayfisherman, attempted to expose
police and political protection of drug trafficking in South
Australia. In 1985 he was charged by the National Crime Authority and
imprisoned, but on appeal was released and his conviction quashed. In
1995 a government-appointed investigator called for a royal
commission into the affair. Federal governments have remained
silent.

The Giraffe Project encourages people to "stick their necks out" to serve the public interest, and commends those who do.

Responses

(1) Do nothing.

This seldom is successful in stopping suppression. Often the
attacks continue. Furthermore, no support is generated for the
dissident.

If critics decide to toe the line and "lie low," then after a
period - often years - they may be accepted back into the fold. This
acquiescence means that future critics are likely to encounter the
same difficulties.

(2) Use informal methods.

This includes talking to the attackers, trying to sort out
misunderstandings, explaining one's actions, etc. This can be
successful when the suppression was a mistake or when, as
occasionally happens, those involved are willing to change. But in
many cases the attackers are unwilling to reconsider their
actions.

(3) Use formal channels.

This means making formal appeals against decisions, using internal
grievance procedures, bringing cases before the Ombudsman or the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, or launching court
actions. This sometimes helps, but usually only in the most blatant
or cut-and-dried cases. The disadvantages of formal channels are that
organisations have a large advantage in resources, there are long
delays and only narrow aspects of the case are dealt with.

(4) Promote and use whistleblower legislation.

Several Australian governments have introduced or are considering
legislation to protect whistleblowers from reprisals. This sounds
like an excellent idea, but it has severe limitations. The
legislation can only cover certain types of individuals, typically
public servants, and particular types of dissent. But many types of
problems are hard to legislate against, such as subtle harassment
campaigns and blocking of appointments.

Legislation has potent symbolic value. On the one hand, it may
legitimate dissent. On the other hand, it may give the appearance
that something is being done about suppression when actually little
has changed.

(5) Bring in unions or other supporting organisations.

When unions or staff associations take up defence of a dissident,
this can be very effective. But in many cases they have no special
brief to intervene (such as when editors censor publications) or,
worse, may side with the attackers.

(6) Mount a publicity campaign.

This could be a small and "in-house" operation involving
circulation of a summary of the case to friends and colleagues and
asking them to write letters or it could be a major public campaign
with stories in newspapers and on television. Publicity is
undoubtedly an extremely potent method of opposing suppression.
Furthermore, journalists often are interested in suppression cases
because they make a good story. The disadvantage is that publicity
can easily get "out of control" of the dissident and may aggravate a
polarised situation.

It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression.
This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on
the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who
observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to
potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which
suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests
that attacks will not be tolerated.

Dissent Network Australia (DNA) is designed to bring together
individuals who have experienced or are concerned about suppression
of dissent. We aim to develop strategies for publicising and
challenging suppression in Australia. We invite you to support the
goals of the network in some of the following ways.

Speak out against instances of suppression.

Provide advice or personal support for someone under
attack.

Collect and share reference materials and case studies.

Be a contact person at your community or workplace.

Liaise with your union, professional association or community
organisation to introduce appropriate policies or legislation
supporting the right to free speech.